On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:55:41AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:49:49PM +0100, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The authoritative document is the menu _manual_:
> > (/usr/share/doc/menu/menu.txt.gz), section 3.7
> >
> > An extract from that section:
> >
> > Debian package maintainers should ensure that any icons they include
> > for use in the Debian menus conform to the following points:
> >
> > 1. The icons should be in xpm format.
> >
> > 2. The icons may not be larger than 32x32 pixels, although smaller
> > sizes are ok.
>
> Note that's a "may" and a "should", not a "must". IIRC they only trigger
> lintian warnings, not errors.
Should I *really* upload a new menu manual with s/should/must ?
Debian policy convention are that violating a should is a normal bug,
violating a must is a serious bug:
In the normative part of this manual, the words _must_, _should_ and
_may_, and the adjectives _required_, _recommended_ and _optional_,
are used to distinguish the significance of the various guidelines in
this policy document. Packages that do not conform to the guidelines
denoted by _must_ (or _required_) will generally not be considered
acceptable for the Debian distribution. Non-conformance with
guidelines denoted by _should_ (or _recommended_) will generally be
considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a package unsuitable
for distribution. Guidelines denoted by _may_ (or _optional_) are
truly optional and adherence is left to the maintainer's discretion.
These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
_serious_ (for _must_ or _required_ directive violations), _minor_,
_normal_ or _important_ (for _should_ or _recommended_ directive
violations) and _wishlist_ (for _optional_ items). [2]
Cheers,
--
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
